A couple of days ago, Forbes posted a presentation created by Interbrand, analyzing the economic value to LeBron James of signing with four possible teams. The content of the presentation was analyzed by CBS Sports and Black Sports Online, but I haven't yet seen any analysis of the presentation design itself. So here goes:
Slides 2 and 3 are pure text; better to have just spoken this part, without text slides to distract the listener.
Slides 4, 5, and 6 are well laid out--they pass the squint test--but the question is whether you should be dragging the audience through your methodology at this point.
Slides 7 and 8 are less attractive, and again about methodology.
Slide 9 is the "money slide," in both senses of the phrase. This the is heart and main message of the presentation--LeBron is likely to make much more money in New York than elsewhere.
After this one, slides 10-13 are a somewhat redundant recap of what was essentially already on slide 9.
And what of slide 11, the conclusion, where presumably we're supposed to seal the deal? A pedantic and uninspired text slide!! If (God forbid!) the person making this presentation actually stood there and read this slide, then the Knicks will truly deserve it if LeBron goes elsewhere.
What should they have done? Slide 9 makes all the main points, and alone would have made an outstanding one-page presentation, handed out, not projected. Questions about methodology etc. would then have been handled in a much more personal and engaging way through Q&A, rather than subjecting the audience to a lecture about brand valuation methodology before they even know why they should care.
It would be a shame if the weak format of this presentation undersold the message. I have a lot of admiration for Interbrand's approach to brand valuation, and if they say that LeBron will make almost $300 million more by going to the Knicks, I am inclined to believe them.
Then again, Interbrand's US head office is in New York...